|
|
Post by doneanddone on May 3, 2017 17:48:02 GMT -5
Intimacy is definitely not over rated. The reason I am a counter refuser is due to lack of general intimacy more than a lack of sex. If I asked him to define intimacy he would probably say "sex" meaning being intimate equates just having sex. I honestly don't think he would grasp what true intimacy in a relationship is. Could I define it? I'm not sure. I just know we don't have it and it's not merely because we don't have sex. The definition of intimacy for a women is going to be different than a mans. I've gone the extra mile and out of my way to accommodate her definition of intimacy and am still sexless. That's where my frustration and sometimes resentment comes from. I give give give give, initiate, initiate, initiate, initiate and get refused refused refused refused. So for me and my circumstances intimacy is over rated. But cheers for you in finding what it means to you and sharing. ty |
|
|
|
Post by hopingforachange on May 3, 2017 18:14:23 GMT -5
Intimacy is definitely not over rated. The reason I am a counter refuser is due to lack of general intimacy more than a lack of sex. If I asked him to define intimacy he would probably say "sex" meaning being intimate equates just having sex. I honestly don't think he would grasp what true intimacy in a relationship is. Could I define it? I'm not sure. I just know we don't have it and it's not merely because we don't have sex. The definition of intimacy for a women is going to be different than a mans. I've gone the extra mile and out of my way to accommodate her definition of intimacy and am still sexless. That's where my frustration and sometimes resentment comes from. I give give give give, initiate, initiate, initiate, initiate and get refused refused refused refused. So for me and my circumstances intimacy is over rated. But cheers for you in finding what it means to you and sharing. ty This is not a man vs woman definition, even though society tells us otherwise. There are many women here that would include sex in thier definition of romantic intimacy. Just like thier male refusers don't include sex in thier definition of romantic intimacy. |
|
|
|
Post by unmatched on May 3, 2017 18:20:22 GMT -5
I don't think cuddling is necessarily intimacy at all. For a long time we had a marriage where there was less and less physical contact - my wife doesn't feel it is that important and if I stepped back we would go for weeks barely touching each other. I am very touch-oriented and it was like torture for me. I remember a point 2 years ago when she touched the back of my neck and I could remember exactly what it felt like for about a week afterwards. In the last year and a half or so we have been talking a lot and going to counselling and the affection side of our relationship is transformed - we touch a lot more and hug and it is like a completely different marriage. But the sex is still not working because that requires a whole different level of intimacy. I think physical affection can be intimate, but very often it is more like 'comfortable'. It is an expression of love and caring and lets us feel like we belong somewhere. But it isn't intimacy, where you are willing to open yourself up and be vulnerable and let the other person inside (pun not really intended!).
|
|
|
|
Post by seabr33z3 on May 3, 2017 18:33:53 GMT -5
I don't think cuddling is necessarily intimacy at all. For a long time we had a marriage where there was less and less physical contact - my wife doesn't feel it is that important and if I stepped back we would go for weeks barely touching each other. I am very touch-oriented and it was like torture for me. I remember a point 2 years ago when she touched the back of my neck and I could remember exactly what it felt like for about a week afterwards. In the last year and a half or so we have been talking a lot and going to counselling and the affection side of our relationship is transformed - we touch a lot more and hug and it is like a completely different marriage. But the sex is still not working because that requires a whole different level of intimacy. I think physical affection can be intimate, but very often it is more like 'comfortable'. It is an expression of love and caring and lets us feel like we belong somewhere. But it isn't intimacy, where you are willing to open yourself up and be vulnerable and let the other person inside (pun not really intended!). Thankyou. Yes. Intimacy does not necessarily involve touch. As was previously stated, it's a connection on a certain level. |
|
|
|
Post by doneanddone on May 3, 2017 18:34:27 GMT -5
I don't think cuddling is necessarily intimacy at all. For a long time we had a marriage where there was less and less physical contact - my wife doesn't feel it is that important and if I stepped back we would go for weeks barely touching each other. I am very touch-oriented and it was like torture for me. I remember a point 2 years ago when she touched the back of my neck and I could remember exactly what it felt like for about a week afterwards. In the last year and a half or so we have been talking a lot and going to counselling and the affection side of our relationship is transformed - we touch a lot more and hug and it is like a completely different marriage. But the sex is still not working because that requires a whole different level of intimacy. I think physical affection can be intimate, but very often it is more like 'comfortable'. It is an expression of love and caring and lets us feel like we belong somewhere. But it isn't intimacy, where you are willing to open yourself up and be vulnerable and let the other person inside (pun not really intended!). That is a great start to rekindling the sex. Appreciate the sharing. I'm an old school kind of guy and carry a lot of weight for the family so the other areas of our marriage that don't involve intimacy or physical touch somehow bleed over into those areas of intimacy, physical touch and sex. I don't by any means "expect" my wife to perform on command. But to be denied simply because of what I feel are selfish reasons makes it that more difficult to understand and accept with questioning. Again thanks for your comments. |
|
|
|
Post by lyn on May 3, 2017 19:59:52 GMT -5
This is brilliant! Lol 👌 |
|
|
|
Post by lyn on May 3, 2017 20:18:06 GMT -5
Intimacy is definitely not over rated. The reason I am a counter refuser is due to lack of general intimacy more than a lack of sex. If I asked him to define intimacy he would probably say "sex" meaning being intimate equates just having sex. I honestly don't think he would grasp what true intimacy in a relationship is. Could I define it? I'm not sure. I just know we don't have it and it's not merely because we don't have sex. The definition of intimacy for a women is going to be different than a mans. I've gone the extra mile and out of my way to accommodate her definition of intimacy and am still sexless. That's where my frustration and sometimes resentment comes from. I give give give give, initiate, initiate, initiate, initiate and get refused refused refused refused. So for me and my circumstances intimacy is over rated. But cheers for you in finding what it means to you and sharing. ty No. It's not gender-specific. There are plenty of women (dozens here in fact) that crave the connection you do. Not being some leftist-feminist here, just want you to realize that it's a genderless issue that boils down to two different personality types (love language types whatever) being matched up, legally bound by marriage. As simple as this statement is, it rings absolute truth imo (thanks Baza), "Sex people belong with Sex people". It's that simple. Otherwise we will continue to bang our heads against the wall trying to figure out why he/she/they won't have sex with us. We're not hideous, they're just not "sex" people. If we decide to stick it out in these mis-matched relationships for whatever reason, the sooner we accept it and try to find meaning in our lives in other ways, the better off we'll be. I've got to say though. A true "sex person" will NEVER be okay with no sex - I'm not even talking intimacy. |
|
|
|
Post by doneanddone on May 4, 2017 9:13:37 GMT -5
The definition of intimacy for a women is going to be different than a mans. I've gone the extra mile and out of my way to accommodate her definition of intimacy and am still sexless. That's where my frustration and sometimes resentment comes from. I give give give give, initiate, initiate, initiate, initiate and get refused refused refused refused. So for me and my circumstances intimacy is over rated. But cheers for you in finding what it means to you and sharing. ty No. It's not gender-specific. There are plenty of women (dozens here in fact) that crave the connection you do. Not being some leftist-feminist here, just want you to realize that it's a genderless issue that boils down to two different personality types (love language types whatever) being matched up, legally bound by marriage. As simple as this statement is, it rings absolute truth imo (thanks Baza), "Sex people belong with Sex people". It's that simple. Otherwise we will continue to bang our heads against the wall trying to figure out why he/she/they won't have sex with us. We're not hideous, they're just not "sex" people. If we decide to stick it out in these mis-matched relationships for whatever reason, the sooner we accept it and try to find meaning in our lives in other ways, the better off we'll be. I've got to say though. A true "sex person" will NEVER be okay with no sex - I'm not even talking intimacy. I agree sex people belong with sex people. But you will be hard pressed NOT to find any documented cases where intimacy was not part of the SM discussion. Whether be it part of the problem, resolution, or whatever, intimacy will forever co-exist with the issues involving a SM. It's one of the top 3 contributors. Physical contact or physical touch (both the same IMO) can or cannot have anything to do with either parties interpretation of intimacy, BUT, the lack there of is the only definitive and realistic reason a SM exists. Then comes the question of what is sex? Sex has multiple definitions when used in different contexts. For a SM it literally means no physical contact or physical touching, no hand jobs, no oral, no finger banging, no nipple pinching, no ass slapping, no intercourse.....nothing. It is at this point that if any discussions are to be had about the SM, the topic of "intimacy" comes into play. By which party of the SM is intimacy a reason, i don't know, it could be the refuser or the denied but either way intimacy will come up. And if used as an excuse for the refuser, a strong argument can be made by the denied that simply because we don't see intimacy the same as our refuser we don't surrender our willingness to participate in sex as they have....but we are willing and have attempted to address the refusers intimacy concerns and still are denied. |
|
|
|
Post by seabr33z3 on May 4, 2017 9:52:32 GMT -5
No. It's not gender-specific. There are plenty of women (dozens here in fact) that crave the connection you do. Not being some leftist-feminist here, just want you to realize that it's a genderless issue that boils down to two different personality types (love language types whatever) being matched up, legally bound by marriage. As simple as this statement is, it rings absolute truth imo (thanks Baza), "Sex people belong with Sex people". It's that simple. Otherwise we will continue to bang our heads against the wall trying to figure out why he/she/they won't have sex with us. We're not hideous, they're just not "sex" people. If we decide to stick it out in these mis-matched relationships for whatever reason, the sooner we accept it and try to find meaning in our lives in other ways, the better off we'll be. I've got to say though. A true "sex person" will NEVER be okay with no sex - I'm not even talking intimacy. I agree sex people belong with sex people. But you will be hard pressed NOT to find any documented cases where intimacy was not part of the SM discussion. Whether be it part of the problem, resolution, or whatever, intimacy will forever co-exist with the issues involving a SM. It's one of the top 3 contributors. Physical contact or physical touch (both the same IMO) can or cannot have anything to do with either parties interpretation of intimacy, BUT, the lack there of is the only definitive and realistic reason a SM exists. Then comes the question of what is sex? Sex has multiple definitions when used in different contexts. For a SM it literally means no physical contact or physical touching, no hand jobs, no oral, no finger banging, no nipple pinching, no ass slapping, no intercourse.....nothing. It is at this point that if any discussions are to be had about the SM, the topic of "intimacy" comes into play. By which party of the SM is intimacy a reason, i don't know, it could be the refuser or the denied but either way intimacy will come up. And if used as an excuse for the refuser, a strong argument can be made by the denied that simply because we don't see intimacy the same as our refuser we don't surrender our willingness to participate in sex as they have....but we are willing and have attempted to address the refusers intimacy concerns and still are denied. I'm really not sure that the type of intimacy that your wife is looking for comes into what you've said you've 'done' to try to address it. I guess my question would be can intimacy be faked? I'll start a new thread so as not to hijack yours. |
|
|
|
Post by doneanddone on May 4, 2017 10:17:58 GMT -5
I agree sex people belong with sex people. But you will be hard pressed NOT to find any documented cases where intimacy was not part of the SM discussion. Whether be it part of the problem, resolution, or whatever, intimacy will forever co-exist with the issues involving a SM. It's one of the top 3 contributors. Physical contact or physical touch (both the same IMO) can or cannot have anything to do with either parties interpretation of intimacy, BUT, the lack there of is the only definitive and realistic reason a SM exists. Then comes the question of what is sex? Sex has multiple definitions when used in different contexts. For a SM it literally means no physical contact or physical touching, no hand jobs, no oral, no finger banging, no nipple pinching, no ass slapping, no intercourse.....nothing. It is at this point that if any discussions are to be had about the SM, the topic of "intimacy" comes into play. By which party of the SM is intimacy a reason, i don't know, it could be the refuser or the denied but either way intimacy will come up. And if used as an excuse for the refuser, a strong argument can be made by the denied that simply because we don't see intimacy the same as our refuser we don't surrender our willingness to participate in sex as they have....but we are willing and have attempted to address the refusers intimacy concerns and still are denied. I'm really not sure that the type of intimacy that your wife is looking for comes into what you've said you've 'done' to try to address it. I guess my question would be can intimacy be faked? I'll start a new thread so as not to hijack yours. hijack away....! and I do think intimacy can be faked. The only thing i don't believe can be faked are male orgasms as others have pointed out can be. But for me any man who fakes that has never been on the denied end of a SM or relationship and should have his testies chopped off for deceiving his partner....plus it's a slap in the face to us men who aren't getting any so men who do fake it are jackholes in my book. I'll be on the look out for your thread....thanks for the opinions.... |
|
|
|
Post by itsjustus on May 4, 2017 13:52:54 GMT -5
I break intimacy down to two different categories, because of confusion between the physical aspect and the mental aspect. I call the physical side affection, ie. touching, hugging, kissing, and other types of touching that is more than you would do for a relative or very close friend. This type of intimacy/affection is still very important to a thriving marriage IMHO. I was missing that in my marriage. There were times I would crave any touch, from about anyone, because of my ex's aversion to touching.
The other intimacy is the opening yourself up to another. Showing a vulnerability to your spouse. A willingness to let them know all about you, to see your true self. Your fears, your hopes, your desires....all the things that are important to you, both positive and negative. And they do the same. I didn't have that, either. My willingness wasn't matched, for reasons of her own (valid for her). It was her unwillingness to actually give a shit about mine, and give a shit about addressing the reasons for hers, that ended the marriage.
Turned out, everything wasn't good except the sex. That was just the symptom....
|
|
|
|
Post by doneanddone on May 4, 2017 14:56:41 GMT -5
I break intimacy down to two different categories, because of confusion between the physical aspect and the mental aspect. I call the physical side affection, ie. touching, hugging, kissing, and other types of touching that is more than you would do for a relative or very close friend. This type of intimacy/affection is still very important to a thriving marriage IMHO. I was missing that in my marriage. There were times I would crave any touch, from about anyone, because of my ex's aversion to touching. The other intimacy is the opening yourself up to another. Showing a vulnerability to your spouse. A willingness to let them know all about you, to see your true self. Your fears, your hopes, your desires....all the things that are important to you, both positive and negative. And they do the same. I didn't have that, either. My willingness wasn't matched, for reasons of her own (valid for her). It was her unwillingness to actually give a shit about mine, and give a shit about addressing the reasons for hers, that ended the marriage. Turned out, everything wasn't good except the sex. That was just the symptom.... Let me ask you this.... When you were opening up and being vulnerable were you able to NOT take what your spouse said or did personal? I guess where I am going with this is that when someone is being as open and as real as the can be without a wall or their guard up I am aware of what I say and what I do as to not put that person into a defensive mode and they shut the door or throw up a wall. For me the hardest thing to do is to NOT take what my wife says personal when I have opened up and shown no fear and just let myself be who I am with her. But when she says she does the same in the sense of NOT taking what I say personal when she is "opening up" she does get defensive and she does throw up the wall. So constructive criticism or feedback is something she cannot handle......well.....at all. The rationale she has about life and certain aspects of life are skewed from a delusional belief in magical ferry tales from her childhood that her family implanted in her from birth and because of that she continues to hold some of those beliefs today and that is why we are in the situation we are in now. |
|
